PEOPLE V.

GENOSA
GR NO. 135981

FACTS:
Marivic Genosa, was married to the victim Ben Genosa. At the first stage of their
marriage Marivic and Ben lived happily together however after some time, the
couple would quarrel often and their fights would become violent. Ben, a habitual
drinker, treated Marvic violently to the point that he would slap her, pin her down
on the bed or beat her. These incidents would happen often, when it does, Marivoc
would run to her parents. She tried to leave her husband but the latter would
always ask for reconciliation.
Consequently, Marivic Genosa, the appellant, on November 15, 1995, attacked and
wounded his husband which ultimately led to his death. According to the appellant,
she did not provoke her husband when she got home that night and it was her
husband who began the provocation. The appellant said she was frightened that her
husband would hurt her and she wanted to make sure she would deliver her baby
safely.
The appellant testified that during her marriage she had tried to leave her husband
at least five times, but that Ben would always follow her and they would reconcile.
The appellant said that the reason why Ben was violent and abusive towards her
that night was because he was crazy about his recent girlfriend, Lulu Rubillos. The
appellant, after being interviewed by specialist, has been shown to be suffering
from Battered Woman Syndrome. The appellant with a plea of self-defense
admitted the killing of her husband. She was found guilty of the crime of parricide,
with the aggravating circumstance of treachery, for the husband was attacked while
asleep.
ISSUES:
1.) Whether or not appellant can validly invoke the Battered Woman
Syndrome as constituting self-defense;
2.) Whether or not treachery attended the killing.
RULING:
1. For the first issue, the SC held that the defense failed to establish all
the elements of self-defense arising from battered woman syndrome, to wit:
(a) Each of the phases of the cycle of violence must be proven to have
characterized at least two battering episodes between the appellant and her
intimated partner; (b) The final acute battering episode preceding the killing
of the batterer must have produced in the battered person’s mind an actual
fear of an imminent harm from her batterer and an honest belief that she
needed to use force in order to save her life, and; (c) At the time of the
killing, the batterer must have posed probable – not necessarily immediate
and actual – grave harm to the accused based on the history of violence
perpetuated by the former against the latter.
2. The Court ruled that when a killing is preceded by an argument or a
quarrel, treachery cannot be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance,
because the deceased may be said to have been forewarned and to have
anticipated aggression from the assailant. Moreover, in order to
appreciate alevosia, the method of assault adopted by the aggressor must
have been consciously and deliberately chosen for the specific purpose of
accomplishing the unlawful act without risk from any defense that might be
put up by the party attacked. Here, there is no showing that appellant
intentionally chose a specific means of successfully attacking her husband
without any risk to herself from any retaliatory act that he might make. It
appears that the thought of using the gun occurred to her only at about the
same moment when she decided to kill her batterer-spouse. Thus, in the
absence of any convincing proof that she consciously and deliberately
employed the method by which she committed the crime in order to ensure
its execution, the Court resolved the doubt in her favor.